Author
Topic: What is your favorite Gospel? (Read 2530 times)

I recently started reading the Gospel of Matthew again and finished it yesterday. Going back to the text, I find some of it perplexing while compared to the Gospel of John, the one which I've read the most often. In the synoptics, Jesus speaks in parable on the Kingdom of God. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus speaks in lengthy discourses on the nature of salvation. This apparent divergence between the Synoptics and John is a great paradox. Perhaps this difference in focus is explained by the different state of the Church. The synoptics were written before the fall of Jerusalem at a time when the Christians were still part of the Jewish community and many believed in an immanent return of Christ to establish the Kingdom of Israel. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Christians were expelled from the Jewish community and placed their focus on humanity as a whole. Thus, while the synoptics provide the message of Jesus to a primarily Jewish audience, John is focused on Jesus as the universal Son of God. The apparent contradictions between the Gospels, especially in the resurrection accounts, leads me to assume that one Gospel must be more historically accurate than the others. Is the Gospel of John historically accurate? The Church Father Origen wrote, "John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells the truth spiritually" (Commentary on John 10.4.6)What is that supposed to mean? If it was indeed penned by John the Apostle then it is the best testimony we have of the deity of Christ. If it was a later forgery contrived by an established church, as modern textual critics claim, then it is a terrible evil. My favorite Gospel is John because of the message of the Gospel, how it makes my heart melt to read it, and the mystery surrounding its authorship and intended purpose.

What is your favorite Gospel and why? Perhaps another question worth asking is, which Gospel do you believe to be the most historically accurate?

This work does not assume to have written by Pilate, but to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The alleged Hebrew original is attributed to Nicodemus. The title "Gospel of Nicodemus" is of medieval origin. The apocryphon gained wide credit in the Middle Ages, and has considerably affected the legends of our Saviour's Passion. Its popularity is attested by the number of languages in which it exists, each of these being represented by two or more recensions. We possess a text in Greek, the original language; a Coptic, an Armenian and a Latin, besides modern translations. The Latin versions were naturally its most current form and were printed several times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One class of the Latin manuscripts contain as an appendix or continuation, the "Cura Sanitatis Tiberii", the oldest form of the Veronica legend.

The "Acta" consist of three sections, which reveal inequalities of style. The first (i-xi) contains the trial of Jesus based upon Luke, xxiii. The second part comprises xii-xvi; it regards the Resurrection. An appendix, detailing the Descensus ad Infernos, forms the third section, This does not exist in the Greek text and is a later addition. Leucius and Charinus, the two souls raised from the dead after the Crucifixion, relate to the Sanhedrin the circumstances of Our Lord's descent to Limbo. The well-informed Eusebius (325), although he mentions the Acta Pilati referred to by Justin and Tertullian and heathen pseudo-Acts of this kind, shows no acquaintance with this work. We are forced to admit that is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century. There is no internal relation between the "Acta" and the feigned letter found in the Acts of Peter and Paul. Epiphanius refers to the Acta Pilati similar to our own, as early as 376, but there are indications that the current Greek text, the earliest extant form, is a revision of the original one. The "Acta" are of orthodox composition and free from Gnostic taint. The book aimed at gratifying the desire for extra-evangelical details concerning Our Lord, and at the same time, to strengthen faith in the Resurrection of Christ, and at general edification. The writers (for the work we have is a composite) could not have expected their production to be seriously accepted by unbelievers. (See Apocryha, under Pilate Literature.)"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111b.htm

1. St. John 13:31 thru Ch. 18,12. St. John 18:1-293. St. Matthew 26:57-754. St. John 18:28 thru Ch. 19:165. St. Matthew 27:3-326. St. Mark 15:16-327. St. Matthew 27:33-548. St. Luke 23:32-499. St. John 19:38-4210. St. Mark 15:43-4711. St. John 19:38-4212. St. Matthew 27:62-66

(yes John 18:1 is said in the first reading, then repeated in the second)

1. St. John 13:31 thru Ch. 18,12. St. John 18:1-293. St. Matthew 26:57-754. St. John 18:28 thru Ch. 19:165. St. Matthew 27:3-326. St. Mark 15:16-327. St. Matthew 27:33-548. St. Luke 23:32-499. St. John 19:38-4210. St. Mark 15:43-4711. St. John 19:38-4212. St. Matthew 27:62-66

(yes John 18:1 is said in the first reading, then repeated in the second)

Gracias, Senor. I'm guessing (since I'm admittingly horribbly ignorant) that John is the much longer Gospel of the 4 and that 5 chapters of John is a ton of material. That definitely explains the 20 min (Approx how long it took last year acording to our recording).

What Gospel do you believe to be the most historically accurate? I would say that it is either Luke or John. Luke was a meticulous historian while John wrote his Gospel the last as an addendum to the Synoptics, providing the historical details which the others neglected.

I recently started reading the Gospel of Matthew again and finished it yesterday. Going back to the text, I find some of it perplexing while compared to the Gospel of John, the one which I've read the most often. In the synoptics, Jesus speaks in parable on the Kingdom of God. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus speaks in lengthy discourses on the nature of salvation. This apparent divergence between the Synoptics and John is a great paradox. Perhaps this difference in focus is explained by the different state of the Church. The synoptics were written before the fall of Jerusalem at a time when the Christians were still part of the Jewish community and many believed in an immanent return of Christ to establish the Kingdom of Israel. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Christians were expelled from the Jewish community and placed their focus on humanity as a whole. Thus, while the synoptics provide the message of Jesus to a primarily Jewish audience, John is focused on Jesus as the universal Son of God. The apparent contradictions between the Gospels, especially in the resurrection accounts, leads me to assume that one Gospel must be more historically accurate than the others. Is the Gospel of John historically accurate? The Church Father Origen wrote, "John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells the truth spiritually" (Commentary on John 10.4.6)What is that supposed to mean? If it was indeed penned by John the Apostle then it is the best testimony we have of the deity of Christ. If it was a later forgery contrived by an established church, as modern textual critics claim, then it is a terrible evil. My favorite Gospel is John because of the message of the Gospel, how it makes my heart melt to read it, and the mystery surrounding its authorship and intended purpose.

What is your favorite Gospel and why? Perhaps another question worth asking is, which Gospel do you believe to be the most historically accurate?

What Gospel do you believe to be the most historically accurate? I would say that it is either Luke or John. Luke was a meticulous historian while John wrote his Gospel the last as an addendum to the Synoptics, providing the historical details which the others neglected.

Matthew777

You asked a question at 16:56:07 and then at 19:04:37 you provide the answer to yourself !

Brother, you must engulf large quantities of bandwidth.

By the way there is a mental condition known as "bipolar". With all respect, have anyone but myself suggested you to serioucly search whether you suffer from it ?

Bipolar? I am just highly bored. I am at the college library looking for scholarly sources for my Sociology 101 midterm paper. I gave an answer of what I believe to be the most historically accurate. What would your opinion be?

Okay, so on topic...as far as my favorite Gospel, and off topic...about the bipolar stuff?...

I personally like the Gospel According to St. Luke best, because of it's detail, especially about the Virgin Birth and the divine nature of Christ...i.e. the announcement by Gabriel, anouncement to the Shepherds, the heavenly sign of a star for the Magi, etc. It is, stylistically speaking (imho), almost on par with St. John's Gospel. I also have a love for beautiful sayings and quotes (which Luke is filled with), i.e.:

"Do not be afraid, I bring you good tidings of great joy that shall be for all people. For, this day, in the City of David is born unto us a Savior who is Christ the Lord."

And (correct me if I'm wrong...I don't have my Bible before me) I believe that Jesus is recorded in Luke as saying:

"Do not be troubled, For it has pleased your Heavenly Father to give you the Kingdom."

Talk about encouraging, when life gets you down. That is why I love Luke. Just my two cents.

Adrian Davila

Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)

My favorite Gospel is John because of how it presents Jesus as the ultimate badass. Think about that. "Before Abraham was, I AM". What could get better than that? He truly is the King of Kings. (I do not mean that as disrepect to Jesus. "Badass" would mean cooler than cool. It is just awesome that the Word became flesh to dwell among us!)

To the casual reader: What Azurestone has done with his cryptic posting above ("Resurrection," plus sorcery card) was to creatively point out that Asteriktos had "resurrected" a long-dormant thread. Second Chance, Section Moderator

John is beautifully written, but unfortunately came later and is "different" than the other 4 synoptics. Luke was a disciple of Paul and has a conflicting account of the thieves on the cross next to Christ.

John is beautifully written, but unfortunately came later and is "different" than the other 4 synoptics. Luke was a disciple of Paul and has a conflicting account of the thieves on the cross next to Christ.

Are you presuming that because you most enjoy the story in Matthew, that it is most accurate? I really don't know how you can justify a claim that any one of the synoptics is more accurate than another.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

John is beautifully written, but unfortunately came later and is "different" than the other 4 synoptics. Luke was a disciple of Paul and has a conflicting account of the thieves on the cross next to Christ.

Are you presuming that because you most enjoy the story in Matthew, that it is most accurate? I really don't know how you can justify a claim that any one of the synoptics is more accurate than another.

First, it's not a "story", its a testimony.

Second the gospel of Matthew was from the original 12 apostles unlike Luke. Third, there is a very large inaccuracy in Luke that does not add up to two other Gospels about the thieves on the cross.Fourth, Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was not a disciple (and a castrated Eunuch according to Tertullian). Possible Heresay x2. Fifth, There are accounts in John that are thought to have been added later, such as the adulteress woman.Sixth, Mark as much as I do find it accurate was written by Mark the Evangelist, who got his info from Peter.

So that basically leaves Matthew & John as gospels written by the actual disciples. With the possible additions to John, I PERSONALLY choose Matthew as my favorite, as there is no controversy that I can find.

NOT because 'I like the "story" the best'.

Now don't get me wrong, I think they are all beautiful. But the OP asked "which is your favorite". So I stated it.

Third, there is a very large inaccuracy in Luke that does not add up to two other Gospels about the thieves on the cross.

There is no contradiction or inaccuracy concerning the fate of one of the thieves in the Gospel of Luke. More, one could follow the same course to defend Luke and blame the others, saying that Matthew and Mark presented an inaccurate story about the thieves.

Fourth, Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was not a disciple (and a castrated Eunuch according to Tertullian). Possible Heresay x2.

According to the Acts of the Apostles and tradition, Paul was an apostle of Christ like the other 12 apostles. The tradition also teaches that Luke was one of the 70 disciples chosen and commissioned by Christ.

And there is no contradiction between both of bandits reviling Jesus and then one of them repenting.

Definitely agree.

Repenting sinners and Lord's mercy towards them are some of the key elements employed in the Gospel of Luke.

Besides, mostly in Luke theological points are made through contrastive pairs:

1) Mary's canticle is based on contrasts.2) Jesus' sermon is based on contrasts.3) The parable of the Pharisee and the publican is based on a contrastive pair.4) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is based on a contrastive pair.5) The narrative of the repentant harlot is based on a contrastive pair.6) The account of the ten lepers is based on a contrastive pair.7) Jesus' first sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth is based on contrastive pairs. .................................................................................................

And there is no contradiction between both of bandits reviling Jesus and then one of them repenting.

Definitely agree.

Repenting sinners and Lord's mercy towards them are some of the key elements employed in the Gospel of Luke.

Besides, mostly in Luke theological points are made through contrastive pairs:

1) Mary's canticle is based on contrasts.2) Jesus' sermon is based on contrasts.3) The parable of the Pharisee and the publican is based on a contrastive pair.4) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is based on a contrastive pair.5) The narrative of the repentant harlot is based on a contrastive pair.6) The account of the ten lepers is based on a contrastive pair.7) Jesus' first sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth is based on contrastive pairs. .................................................................................................

Both of you are WRONG. Look -

Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

This is most people's understanding that you can achieve salvation on your death bed. However LUKE contradicts Matthew and Mark -

Matthew 27:44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. Mark 15:32 32 Let this Christ,b this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Read it for yourself. Study it. Do you not see the blatant contradiction? Luke is the basis on how most people believe you can be saved on your death bed. Do I think you can? I don't know. But that doesn't matter in context with the OP's question.

Wow, I'm simply amazed at some of the people here on this board. The OP simply asked a question "What is your favorite gospel". I state the "Gospel of Matthew". I give reasons for my explanations.

1) Luke differs from Matthew & Mark and was a disciple of a eunuch who didn't witness Christ's life.2) Mark was not written by an apostle3) John was the last gospel written, and though beautiful, stories such as the adulterous woman was added later. 4) Matthew has been understood to be written by the apostle Matthew, and is accurate with Mark.

Bam. Matthew is my favorite. Love the other gospels, but Matthew is my favorite.

People get all bent out of shape because I like the Gospel of Matthew the best. LOL!

Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

This is most people's understanding that you can achieve salvation on your death bed. However LUKE contradicts Matthew and Mark -

Matthew 27:44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. Mark 15:32 32 Let this Christ,b this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Read it for yourself. Study it. Do you not see the blatant contradiction?

Have you considered the possibility that both accounts are true? What is to say that St. Dismas did not initially mock our Lord (only to later have a change of heart)?

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

I think Mark is quite an incredible story. It is stark. It is sudden (then, then, then,). It is surprising. It is economic.

The Gospels were written for Christians. It ain't like the folks hearing most of the stuff didn't know the "ending". Much like Greek Tragedy this is an account of a story they knew but in a specific manner.

Mark is apocalyptic and quick. No human confesses Jesus as God (he is confessed at the Son of God of course at the point of his death). The demons know Him. Christ strangely doesn't want anyone to know his identity. Christ is not the boy-friend variety. This the Christ Matthew and more so Luke "soften" a bit.

And it is the story of His utter abandon and ends in shock and awe, if we keep to the older witnesses.

This is not a thorough critique. I am just riffing here. If you would truly like to get into why I think Mark really IS THE Gospel so to speak, especially I think for grasping the violence of the Gospel, we can.

One redaction I would make to the Mark and it is really a terrible piece of writing. I can barely read it as it ruins such a great portion of the text:

Mark 14:

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Seems gratuitous. The betrayal of Christ and everyone fleeing is enough, this just seems "tacked on" for real.

Of course, eventually Mark would have to end up with an account of the Resurrection.

But I like to try to read Mark as new Christian hearing the Gospel recounted in such a systematic way for the first time and being left with that ending. It raises many questions about OUR response to Christ and OUR abandoning Him and emphasizes the radical and unexpected nature of His Resurrection even among those most faithful. The women.

Again off the cuff. I would probably cave on more than a few points above. Just trying to give you a general idea of where I am coming from.

Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

This is most people's understanding that you can achieve salvation on your death bed.

So what? Do you think some people cannot achieve salvation on their death bed no matter how sincere their faith and repentance may be?

Matthew 27:44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. Mark 15:32 32 Let this Christ,b this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Read it for yourself. Study it. Do you not see the blatant contradiction?

NO. I do not see a blatant contradiction. Luke only gets into details and focuses on the conversion and salvation of one of the thieves. Where does Jesus say in any of the Gospels that people who repent and have sincere faith will not be accepted into the Kingdom of God?

Luke is the basis on how most people believe you can be saved on your death bed. Do I think you can? I don't know. But that doesn't matter in context with the OP's question.

Luke also refers to Jesus' crucifixion as a type of parousia. "There will be two people in the field. One will be taken, and the other will be left". (Matthew 20:40) Of the two thieves, only one of them was saved and taken by Christ to Heaven.

I have St. Joseph Catholic Bible Edition. In the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew many reasons are reckoned to explain why it is not accurate to ascribe this Gospel to Apostle Matthew himself. I simply wonder why you do not apply the same skepticism to Matthew's authorship.

Maybe the Gospels contradict one another, maybe they don't, my jury is still out. Either way let's make sure it's an actual contradiction and not another "the Bible teaches Pi = 3" thing. I don't see the contradiction yim sees between the accounts of the thieves. I think he's just making excuses for his Judaizing BS.

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Maybe the Gospels contradict one another, maybe they don't, my jury is still out. Either way let's make sure it's an actual contradiction and not another "the Bible teaches Pi = 3" thing. I don't see the contradiction yim sees between the accounts of the thieves. I think he's just making excuses for his Judaizing BS.

Of course they contradict one another.

Big deal. Truth ain't correspondence, at least not radically.

And for the record I have no idea what YIM is going on about nor do I care. I was just answering a question in subject line.

I've always liked Mark. From a child till today. One of the few things which hasn't changed over the years surprisingly.